Right off the top, it's political propaganda bullshit. Climate change simply does not belong in a "disaster preparedness plan". We need a government safety and action plan for EMERGENCIES, not slow climate transitions. Even the most alarmist climate change worryers generally know better than to claim that sea levels are going to jump ten feet overnight, or that the plot of The Day After Tomorrow is going to come true, say, the day after tomorrow. It's an intentional political approproation of a needed and legitimate life-saving government service to promote a belief, nothing more, whether the belief is correct or not.
As far as this B.S. goes, it really doesn't matter what you think about climate change/global warming/ whatever- whether you totally accept the theory, totally deny it, accept some of it, or just remain open but skeptical.
It doesn't matter, because even FEMA and the biggest promoters of the theory admit that even if it IS a looming disaster, there is no real way to tell what will happen, or where and when. Sea levels MAY rise, but nobody knows how much or how fast. Storm activity MAY increase and MAY get more severe (or less severe), but nobody knows how much or where or if it will happen at all. Drought MAY increase, but nobody knows how much or where. All or none or some of this or something else entirely MAY happen, sometime between now and when Jesus gets back from vacation. That's about what we really know.
Now, to a certain degree, all disaster planning is like this...if disasters were neatly scheduled, we could all just leave town for the weekend and have a few beers while camping and fishing somewhere safe. However, we do have the knowledge of past experience. In California and Hawaii we know to look out for earthquakes and tsunamis. People in southern and eastern states know to look out for hurricanes and tropical storms. All western states expect drought and wildfires. Low lying areas with lots of rain or runoff expect periodic floods. People in colder places know to plan for blizzards. And everyone knows the toxic emission risks of a good Chili Cook-Off.
But how exactly are you supposed to "assess the risk" of something that even the most studied researchers can't begin to describe accurately or definitively? The descriptions offered are so vague and uncertain as to be useless in planning for anything. Pretty much anything you could add about "climate change" is either useless or redundant. What are they supposed to do, mention a whole laundry list of vague maybes and call it "disaster preparedness"?
FEMA spokesperson explains Climate Change "Disaster Preparedness"
So, now our state governments have to essentially incorporate "Climate Change Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan-fiction" into their REAL disaster plans, or they will have less money to prepare for anticipated disasters that we already know are threats to particular areas.
As disaster planning, this is beyond stupid. You might as well make them prepare for a Godzilla attack, or the imminent Martian Invasion. But- as a way to get official "climate change" propaganda into every single state's disaster preparedness documents and policies? What a great move, if the goal is to force "legitimacy" and spread the "OMG THREAT!!!" narrative anywhere possible. And they only have to threaten the lives of citizens in places with real, known, and at least somewhat predictable disasters to do it. And guess what....if the state agencies have trouble coming up with anything (because it's bullshit), FEMA will gladly assist them in writing the plan, to make sure they get everything sounding just right....how sweet of them! Always there to help!
My favorite bit from the linked article is a quote from an interviewee:
"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics", said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state because of his climate beliefs."
Don't you just love the completely dishonest reversal of responsibility here? If a governor doesn't want to be forced to put useless propaganda into the state's disaster preparedness plans, he's the one "increasing risk to citizens". Uh, no, you dishonest twit...FEMA is the one playing politics and risking lives, not the governors. If you're going to blackmail state governments and play god with the lives of the people you are supposed to be protecting(rather than indoctrinating), at least have the decency to own it, OK?